New York Eminent Domain

The abuse of eminent domain—where government takes private property against the owner’s will—is a nationwide problem. But for years, New York property owners faced a particularly outrageous system not only fraught with abuse, but set up to prevent property owners from challenging such abuse under state procedures. On Wednesday, October 4, 2000, the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice filed a federal lawsuit to change that. The suit was filed in Manhattan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

"New York’s eminent domain law defied both common sense and the Constitution," said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, which represents the property owner. "In New York, there are only 30 days when you can object to the government taking your property to give it to another private party. Those 30 days came and went without any individual notice to the owner, a proper hearing, or notice of the right to appeal, all of which are required by the Constitution. Those who face the loss of a home, business or church receive less due process than a kid being suspended from school.”

The New York Legislature has now changed its law to give owners notice of loss of their rights and the need for bringing a rapid legal challenge if they want to keep their property, and a federal judge has ruled that the Village of Port Chester violated Brody's due process rights by failing to give him notice. While this ruling unfortunately came too late to save Brody’s building from the bulldozers, the Village has responded by issuing a full public apology to Brody for violating his rights and renaming a nearby street corner “William Brody Plaza” in honor of his long fight to preserve his (and other property owners’) constitutional rights.

June 16, 2009: The village of Port Chester apologizes for violating Brody’s Constitutional rights

October 2, 2008: IJ appeals decision to award no damages or injunctive relief

September 18, 2008: Village of Port Chester appeals decision that it violated Brody's rights

August 11, 2008: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York awarded Brody nominal damages. The judge found that Brody’s rights were violated when he was denied the opportunity to fight the Village’s decision to use eminent domain. Nonetheless, he refused to return Brody’s property or award other damages.

July 18, 2007: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules the government must provide citizens with notice before their right to challenge eminent domain expires. Further, the Village of Port Chester, N.Y., violated Brody’s rights by failing to do so.

December 5, 2005: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reverses and rules that the Village of Port Chester violated William Brody's 14th Amendment right to due process of the law by condemning his property for private development without even giving him personal notice of his one opportunity to challenge the condemnation.

January 4, 2005: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York holds that New York’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law did not violate constitutional rights and finding no violation of Brody's rights either.

September 24, 2003: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reverses and holds that there was no earlier proceeding in which owners could have brought their claims. The court sent the case back to district court for a decision on the merits.

October 19, 2001: IJ appeals decision against property owners.

September 20, 2001: Summary judgment granted for defendants on grounds that plaintiffs should have brought their claims in an earlier proceeding.